Xref: utzoo alt.religion.computers:1188 gnu.misc.discuss:622 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zds-ux!gerry From: gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Disinfecting the GNU Public Virus...er...License Message-ID: <62@zds-ux.UUCP> Date: 21 Dec 89 18:57:33 GMT References: <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com> <1989Dec20.170048.14251@relay.nswc.navy.mil> Reply-To: gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) Followup-To: alt.religion.computers Organization: Zenith Data Systems Lines: 30 In article <1989Dec20.170048.14251@relay.nswc.navy.mil> Dave Sill writes: >In article <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com>, jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you >ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >> This is a legal virus, as insidious and as evil as the (all too common) >> computer virus. ---- I and I'm sure many others are getting tired of this subject, but I would like to point out one think. The only reason this issue comes up at all is that FSF distributes their source freely (with the GPL restrictions). The commertial companies that supply the OS I currently get paid to work on are considerable *more* restrictive, and their licenses also have virus like properties (i.e. if you make an extension to our software, it is ours). It has been pointed out many times that: >So what? If you don't like that, don't use the software. And you don't even have to go that far. You can use it, look at the source, sell your services for installing and maintaining it, etc., all without having to worry at all about the GPL. I personally have a much bigger problem with the way AT&T has taken all kinds of code developed for the public domain and made it part of their licensed product. If FSF and the GPL was around while UNIX was evolving in the university community, much of what we now must pay for would already be covered by the GPL and thus publicly available for out perusal. Now they have to develop the tools again from scratch, so it will take some time. Gerry Gleason